Email

WHENEVER an abnormal change in Pakistan’s political superstructure has taken place, mostly in the form of coups against elected governments, the charge sheet against the deposed politician(s) has included some derogatory remarks about the system in vogue. The ouster of Nawaz Sharif from the prime ministership through a judicial order also will give rise to some criticism of the parliamentary democracy that allows for the kind of wrongdoings the prime minister was accused of.

The criticism of the system has, however, been quite sketchy, Ghulam Mohammad justified the sacking of the Constituent Assembly on the grounds of its failure to draft a constitution, which was incorrect. While replacing an elected government with martial law, Iskander Mirza not only abused politicians, he also denounced as unworkable the 1956 Constitution that he had sworn to uphold. Gen Ayub Khan too rejected Western democracy while condemning politicians because, firstly, democracy could not be cultivated in Pakistan’s climate and, secondly, it did not suit the genius of the people. Even such outlandish theorising was not challenged because many people were waiting to eat out of the dictator’s palm.

The man who went after the parliamentary system with a vengeance was Gen Ziaul Haq. In the beginning, he found little wrong with the 1973 Constitution except for the need to insert a few Islamic provisions, which he continued doing during the 1979-84 period. Then he noted an imbalance between the powers of the president and the prime minister and corrected it by increasing his own powers, including the acquisition of the power to sack elected governments under Article 58-2(b). Finally, he came out in favour of the presidential form of government. Unfortunately, even the Shura committee on reforms did not agree with him. That the system became presidential without being christened so was beside the point.

No system can realise its potential if it is as frequently disrupted as has happened in Pakistan.

In the course of his campaign, Gen Zia relied for a short while on a diary of the Quaid-i-Azam in which the latter was reported to have favoured the presidential system. This did not help him because between 1938 and 1940 the Quaid was rejecting any form of representative government for India as it would turn Muslims into a permanent minority. This was in continuation of the Indian Muslims’ reservations about democracy, from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan downwards. Thus, the Quaid’s observations relating mostly to the Indian context could not be applied in Pakistan.

Besides, Zia did not come to the Quaid with clean hands. He rejected Jinnah’s ideal of excluding religion from politics, his pledge of equal citizenship for non-Muslims, and his affirmation of the sovereignty of parliament; Zia feigned ignorance of the Quaid’s declaration that the Constitution would be made by the representatives of the people (except that Pakistan would be a people’s democracy). For such a person to seek the Quaid’s help, only to promote a presidential system, demanded extraordinary proficiency in dissimulation that Zia alone was capable of.

The case in favour of the parliamentary form is quite simple. It is the system ordinary citizens have become familiar with through more than a century of usage. It is based on the principle of the diffusion of power and transparent decisions, which is preferable to the concentration of power in a single person’s hands and secret rule. Further, elected representatives are accountable to the electorate to a greater degree than in other systems. This is fundamentally important in a federation as a concentration of power in the hands of the president can spell disaster. True, the performance of parliamentary democracy has not matched its promise, but no system, parliamentary or presidential, can realise its potential if it is as frequently disrupted as has happened in Pakistan.

Advocates of the presidential system claim that it is more effective but so is dictatorship; effectiveness does not always mean efficiency or public good. The argument that the presidential system allows the employment of experts to run the administration instead of less qualified ministers in the parliamentary form is based on a misconception. Governance comprises two parts — making the right choices to meet the demands of the people (and this can only be done by people’s representatives), while for the other part, namely, proper realisation of popularly chosen objectives, experts can be hired under any system.

The most decisive argument against the presidential system is that it has already been tested and found unsuitable. Powerful presidents of Pakistan, from Iskander Mirza to Zia and Pervez Musharraf, have done more harm to Pakistan than all the much-maligned leaders of the parliamentary system put together.

What is ignored in the debate on the presidential vs the parliamentary form of government is the fact that both will have difficulty in surviving in Pakistan because, to the extent they are democratic in character, they are not in accord with the culture of the rulers or the ruled. Democracy cannot flourish in a country that permits belief-based discrimination, where women suffer patriarchy at its worst, where pseudo-religious practices are treated as divinely ordained, where feudal norms dominate and land reform is forbidden by law (and the Supreme Court cannot decide the challenge to this gross injustice for years), and where civilian authority holds power at the pleasure of the military. Because of these factors, no attempt to improve the system — through controlled democracy, the induction of technocrats in parliament, restricting parliament’s membership to graduates, and emphasis on the bogey of morality — has been fruitful. The main charge against all the governments that we have had is that they failed to remove the boulders lying across the path to a democratic dispensation.

The problem is that democracy cannot be abandoned, for to be ruled by elected representatives is a basic human right. And the people of Pakistan have confirmed their allegiance to democracy by sweeping away dictatorships every few years. Respect for that will of the people is the only issue in Pakistan.

Read more

On DawnNews

Comments (17) Closed

Jamil Soomro, New York City

Aug 03, 2017 04:47am

Few days ago Mr.Syed Khawar Mehdi wrote an article "Trojan Horses of Democracy"in favour of the Presidential Form of Govt.Mr.I.A..Rehman has come up with his own critical and sensible article on the shortcomings of the Presidential Form of Govt.and in favour of Parliamentary Form of Govt.The Writer is
absolutely right when he says,"Powerful Presidents of Pakistan from Iskander Mirza to Zia and Pervez
Musharraf have done more harm to Pakistan than all the much maligned leaders of the Parliamentary System
put together".

Recommend0

roshan

Aug 03, 2017 06:09am

Unfortunately in our country democracry and military both hasn't been fruitful in satifsying the poor individual of the nation .

Recommend0

AHAQ

Aug 03, 2017 06:44am

Weeding out bad apples that corrupt the political and economic environment through corrupt practices is a good omen for democracy and its stability. Accountability is a backbone of the democratic process and has been administered by the highest court of Law in Pakistan... not by military dictatorship or a mass revolutionary street justice process

Recommend0

SATT

Aug 03, 2017 08:28am

Democracy ?

Recommend0

brr

Aug 03, 2017 09:31am

Every decade after being abused and mauled by dictators and strong men, pakistanis suddenly develop a new love for democracy, which they are subsequently only eager to denounce once the dictator's yoke is thrown away. Fickle people with short memories.

Recommend0

M.M.Amin(Old Ravian)

Aug 03, 2017 10:30am

Mr.I.A. Rehman has put to gather political history of the nation rather selectively . He has ignored the vital ingredient of "democracy" ie democracy within political parties as against person--centric structure which is our history and is self evident .Have we evolved in these terms ;NO. What "democracy" are we operating ? This is not to imply the value and worth of Democracy as we see it in the real world working .He is correct to say we keep swinging without giving a system a fair continuous run .

Recommend0

Muhammad Haroon

Aug 03, 2017 10:43am

Sir I have a question is American democracy or presidential system not a reflection of people's representativeness? It's true that in Pak it has failed but it was practised by military dictatorship not civilian govt

Recommend0

Syed F. Hussaini

Aug 03, 2017 12:13pm

Seventy years and still no democracy although it was promised from day one.

Literally a lifelong breach of contract.

Recommend0

Well Meaning

Aug 03, 2017 02:43pm

it is upto people to fight for their rights .

Recommend0

Imran Ahmed

Aug 03, 2017 02:53pm

A simple and clear message conveyed with the beauty of logic. Masterly.

Recommend0

asad khan

Aug 03, 2017 02:53pm

IA Rehman is an old family friend, most respected. But have to strongly disagree on this article. Parliamentary democracy on its own is vulnerable to "tyranny of the majority", and this was of course applicable in a Hindu dominated India but also in a much wider context. Hence you need independent institutions, checks and balances, to safeguard against gaming of the parliamentary system, everything from gerrymandering to the creation of oligopolies of political parties controlling it. You can also trace problems in its evolution, from Britain, with respect to rotten and pocket boroughs (constituencies). Continental Europeans have tried to fix some of these problems by proportional representation. Elected representatives are vital, but in an equation with other strong checks and balances.

Recommend0

Aftab Islam

Aug 03, 2017 03:36pm

@Jamil Soomro, New York City these were dictators. The presidential form of government exists in America and works very well with checks and balances that prevent any one person from being powerful.

Recommend0

Ali Arif

Aug 03, 2017 04:45pm

It's a true narrative no doubt but what we lack or knowingly/unknowingly leave untouched in our writings about the governance and the form of the government is the the economic facet of this entire issue.The poor man has got no choice in the strict sense of the word even in a democracy in the polity like that of Pakistan.

Recommend0

Multani

Aug 03, 2017 06:01pm

A very good article by Mr Rehman.

Recommend0

zaid Asghar

Aug 04, 2017 09:41am

yes sir, you are right.This nation is still unable to enjoy the rewards of democracy but one of the major reason behind is again our politicians that became part of every government ,selection system of our country , feudalism that is still in power and mind set of people during selection of candidates.

Recommend0

Ali Azhar

Aug 04, 2017 10:18am

I do not disagree with the author. However, I feel that those passionately advocating parliamentary system for Pakistan have to do better than whip the military and judiciary and cite the already well-known "history". They have to build up pressure on "civilians" to liberate political parties from family monopolies, empower the Senate, activate local governments and bring about meaningful electoral reforms. Otherwise, their cause will increasingly be a losing one!

Recommend0

Imran Ahmed

Aug 04, 2017 02:25pm

The brainwashing of the Pakistani public is almost complete, many cannot perceive that living under a dictatorship or a "partial democracy" where unrepresentative individuals decide on our lives is akin to slavery. That dictators and those who usurp legitimate authority are nothing but criminals.